To the Editor:
There has been much recent public discourse about proposed (and some recently completed) development projects in Princeton. For almost anyone who is paying attention, and especially for those who have chosen to live in this town with an appreciation of its historic significance, atmosphere and quality of life, the sheer number of projects (many of them extremely dense) is concerning. Princeton is a town with a special character, and the runaway development that is occurring, with much more threatened, has great potential to diminish that character and push Princeton towards becoming a “wannabe city.” I do not believe that Princeton should be preserved as a museum to the past, but rather that all development here should be appropriate to the neighborhood it is proposed for, in character, scale, and quality.
Valuable discussion has been offered about the heavy-handed push through of the recently updated Master Plan, the inappropriateness of allowing payment in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) by developers, and the associated financial burdens to be borne by taxpayers. These are all serious issues and concerns that I share. But the most insidious threat of the unbridled scale of development projects in Princeton is, in my opinion, use of an until-recently-unknown tool called an “Area in Need of Redevelopment” (ANR), a statute that New Jersey has employed to entice developers to enter markets that are blighted or depressed by allowing them to exceed the existing zoning density and relax other standards that would otherwise apply (including building height and setbacks), to help guarantee their extra profitability in those ”uncertain markets.”
Astonishingly, Princeton officials have entertained proposals by developers (invoking this new ANR statute) that increase density beyond what is mandated by long-established zoning and found in favor of allowing these inappropriately large projects. I know of no property in Princeton that could legitimately be considered “blighted” (though some property owners have been guilty of strategic neglect over the years, while planning to eventually re-develop their property or monetize it by selling to others to develop); however, there is surely much bonus profit to be made by developers whose proposed projects are considered under ANR “no rules” status.
The truth is that in the town of Princeton, development should be seen as an honor rather than a cry for incentivization. Structurally-sound existing (and all historic) building stock should be preserved, adaptively reused if possible and added to if appropriate. New construction should be compatible with the scale, massing and materials of existing construction in the neighborhoods it is proposed for, and most importantly, be governed by the existing Princeton zoning rules.
Going forward with projects that follow such guidelines can be a future path to development that everyone should find to be responsible and reasonable. I believe the public should urge town officials to dispense with the use of ANR to override existing zoning and return to requiring that development proposals be guided by what is appropriate and conforming to Princeton standards.